Words, like addiction, hurtful too

Journalists are trained to use language in a certain way. We tend to shoot for the jugular — for small, descriptive words that convey precisely what we intend.

Unlike law enforcement professionals — cops, in our parlance — we say car instead of motor vehicle. We eschew ponderous lawyerly prose for simpler phrases. We like to get to the point.

On Thursday, in a column about heroin addiction, I referred to the addict I interviewed as a "junkie." I didn't give the term a second thought, and I highly doubt that the subject of the piece cared one whit.

But other people did, and it's a reminder that words wound in our increasingly sensitive society.

"As a parent/aunt/ex-wife of a heroin addict I respectively ask that you don't refer to these people as junkies," wrote Main South Citizen, on our website. "It is a negative name (and our families) are trying to support them through their addiction and disease ... The term 'junkie' hurts us all."

Another reader said she was "disgusted" by my use of the term.

"They are human beings that have a substance abuse issue ... Now, you on the other hand I WILL NOT call a human being because clearly you have NO compassion ..."

Granted, even addressing this topic is a no-win undertaking. Many folks brook no sympathy for heroin addicts and are likely at this very moment screaming at their newspaper or computer screen that the world has gone mad if we can't call an addict a junkie.

Are they right?

Opinion was somewhat divided in our newsroom. Most of the reporters and editors I polled said they had no problem with the word junkie, especially in a newspaper column, where we're allowed more leeway to use casual language. Several said that the tone of the column was sympathetic to its subjects, and that the word was proper within the context of describing a man who didn't care who knew he was an addict.

Only one reporter said he wouldn't use the word because he considers it pejorative, although he's used it in the past. But he noted that language and sensibilities evolve.

Dr. Eric Garcia, who I quoted in the column, said he thought the article struck the proper tone. Only when I asked about the word 'junkie' did he address his feelings.

"I don't like defining terms," he said. "People who are addicted aren't necessarily what everyone pictures. We're experiencing this revelation that addiction isn't just for the inner city anymore. Addiction is linked to brain chemistry and biological elements, rather than a moral issue of weakness of character. That word brings it up ... I don't like the word prostitute, either."

Ironically, feedback from heroin addicts indicated they had no problem referring to themselves as junkies. In an email, one woman wrote: "I just wanted to thank you for writing about people who use and not making us seem like monsters ... I'm educated and moral and addicted and terrified. I've been through rehab twice... I'm one of those users who is terrified to use but can't stop."

I asked how she felt about the word junkie.

"Personally, I identify with the term and didn't find it offensive, especially in the context that you used it." Likewise, on websites for addicts, numerous heroin users said they actually prefer the word junkie, because the word "addict" implies helplessness.

But Garcia had a sadder reason for addicts' acceptance of the word.

"Shame is such a huge part of the drug culture," he said. "So they call themselves names."